Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Paris mayor plans to sue FOX News, and the man at the center of the controversy is speaking out

January 21, 2015
Wilson

Writer

A few days ago, Steve Emerson was on FOX News to talk about the attacks on 'Charlie Hebdo'. During an interview, he said, "in Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." The comments went viral, and now FOX News is apologizing and the Paris mayor is threatening to sue the network for inaccurate reporting. Steve joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss the outcry and the real Islamic extremism issue in Europe.

"[Emerson] immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here," Glenn said.

Steve explained, "n Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology," he said.

"The reason it went viral is because...it was a hatred of Fox. The Islamists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort," he continued.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN: Steve Emerson is one of the nation's best national security correspondents. His investigative work on radical Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to that nation's national security. There is no one who has exhibited the same expertise, courage, and determination to tackle this vital issue, written by the "New York Times" executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal. That is who Steve Emerson is. Steve Emerson is one of the bravest people investigators I believe on the planet. One of the -- one of the few that actually called September 11th before September 11 th happened. One of the few that has been there every step of the way, calling it exactly the way it is. Now, he made a mistake but honestly, it's a mistake that I think many of us could have made, because we have heard for years about no-go zones. And for some reason, France, England, and the left are coming after now Fox News and I believe targeting Steve Emerson. Because he was on the air and he was talking about no-go zones. Well, there are no, no, no go zone. But if you want to talk about political nitpicking, listen to this. No-go zones -- what are you implying with a no-go zone? You're implying that the police just don't go into that area. Well, okay. Is that true? Are there places here in America that either visitors or cops just avoid? There's no place here in America that I know of that the police say, I am not going in there. However, there are sensitive areas and areas so dangerous that you just don't go in unless you have to. The French call it a sensitive urban zone. Not a no go zone. This is -- documentation from the French government, sensitive urban zones. ZUS. I have here -- this is 35 pages of fine print, towns that are -- sensitive -- what are they call them? Sensitive urban zones. We would know them as no-go zones. So Steve Emerson was on Fox News and he made a statement about these no-go zones. And he said, I think the way most people speak without accuracy, and he said, you know, it's almost like completely Muslim or he talked about one place. Almost --

PAT: Birmingham totally Muslim.

GLENN: Totally Muslim. Well, no, it's thought totally Muslim. It's 25 or 30% Muslim. However, what is the culture, I don't know. He immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here. I heard this on Friday and -- or on Monday. And I immediately reached out to Steve Emerson. We haven't had a chance to talk until right now. And he happens to be on the phone now to explain what's going on. Hi, Steve, how are you?

EMERSON: Hi, Glenn. I'm okay. Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: First of all, thank you for all of the hard work that you have done over the years. You are really truly an American who has risked it all and -- and really, spent a lot of your life, and I would have to imagine you feel it sometimes, there have got to be days you feel you've waste add lot of your life because nobody will listen and they're just trying to torch you. But I want you to know I as an American am grateful for the things that you have done.

EMERSON: I appreciate the kind words, you know. I'm only doing my job and I started doing it 20 years ago because I felt nobody was looking at the real aspects then of the first World Trade Center bombing in February of '92. And then -- I'm sorry, February '93. And then of course, the 9/11 attacks occurred. So I established a nonprofit looking at what the government wasn't looking at, which was the political slam, radical Islamic activities of the mosques, of the Islamic groups that pretended to be moderate or civil rights groups but were in fact conduits for radical Islamic activities. Even terrorist activities. So that's what I've dedicated my life to. And yet I did -- as you pointed out, I made a serious error when I referred to Birmingham -- I was talking about no-go zones, which by the way is not a formal reference. I mean, governments don't recognize that term. But it's an informal reference where -- in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won't go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it's been reported on since 2002 of all places, the "New York Times" -- which referenced it. Now, having said that, in discussing it, I discussed it in England where I talked about the sharia police in parts of London that had -- basically attacked non-Muslims for not wearing the right attire. And this was reported in the BBC. It's reported in London newspapers. And yet I was attacked by the BBC for saying it. And in Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmid gated -- unmitigated, you know, unreserved, inambiguous apology. I put out my website.

GLENN: Steve, Steve, Steve. Tell me what's really --

EMERSON: Made any mince about it, okay?

GLENN: Tell me what's really going on.

EMERSON: The reason it went viral is because the reason -- it was a hatred of Fox. People -- the Islamicists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort. The irony, of course, that the mayor of Paris, where -- Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world where you would think it reigns has this symbolic city of free speech, having seen the massacre of people protecting -- trying to exercise free speech, is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech? Which is actually true. I mean, I'd like to see the portionan mayor suing Fox or suing me. On discovery they wouldn't get away with it.

GLENN: No, I'm sitting here with 30 fif page of something called sensitive urban zones, which is what -- we, you know -- in colloquial terms call no-go zones. That's what they call them. Sensitive urban zones. It's the same thing, is it not? Or am I wrong on that?

EMERSON: It can be. It's an amorphous determine and I think it fluctuates from area to area, so I think that, again, no so against is an informal determine that the governments don't recognize. They don't recognize as a formal term, which is why Fox actually issued a second apology on Saturday night saying you know, there's no such thing as a formal, you know, recognition of no-go zones. And we -- you know, we apologize for using that term. But again, there is no formal designation of no-go zone. Those are -- the French map listed areas where there are -- what they called sensitive urban zones, where there are areas that the police or firemen or areas where government agents won't go in. And it -- the difference -- there are differences in each different zone, but certainly those zones are designated as such because of the refusal by various government agencies or services to go in for fear of their lives.

GLENN: Steve, are we --

EMERSON: BriMerrill Muslim, they're all Muslim. And in some areas they have sharia courts, not ought necessarily. But this goes beyond necessarily those areas. Some areas, it's very, very -- you know, no go, which means nobody goes in. And in some areas they do go in when they have to go in. So I think that the definition varies. On the other hand, you have mayors. You have chiefs of police. You have chiefs of firemen. You have journalists, French journalists, all -- documenting and talking about no-go zones for years.

GLENN: Right, I know.

EMERSON: As well as an article in the "New York Times" or "Newsweek" going back to 2002 and 2005. So the notion somehow this was just an invention of Fox is ludicrous.

GLENN: So Steve, let --

EMERSON: -- only because, as you pointed out, a desire to get at Fox. Or desire to get at me.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this. If this is where France is after, you know, after this attack, and they are so hyper focused on political correctness, and they care this much about destroying somebody like you and Fox, is your -- do you think Europe has a chance of recovering from the radicalism that is infected, and I mean radicalism from both the Islamic side and the fascistic side? There is a fight for who's going to control the populace. Which fascism, Islamofascism or the new neo-Nazi fascism? Does it have a chance of surviving?

EMERSON: The correct dynamics. Which is -- you see a rise of this -- you know, of a right wing -- sometimes very fascistic reaction to the emergence of these radical Islamic zones. And self-declared sovereignty. The sharia courts that have been enabled by European governments. The fact that -- in many countries, in Sweden as well, you will find higher rates of rape and theft and crime associated with dense Muslim migration. And I want to be very clear that I'm not saying that Muslims are responsible for all crimes or anything like that or they're responsible for all terrorism.

GLENN: I'm going to let do you that, but you don't have to on this show. We're all adults.

EMERSON: I want to be very clear in stating that.

GLENN: No, I know.

EMERSON: And I'm not associating Islam with terrorism itself, but there is a -- and it is radical in Europe. And I say statements with Mr. Cameron, who called me an idiot. But Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they're just monsters. I could I is a that statement is more idiotic than any statement I've ever made.

PAT: Yep.

EMERSON: It doesn't necessarily mean they're equal to Islam, but it these do with the interpretation.

GLENN: They're quoting.

(overlapping speakers).

EMERSON: We have to recognize to the extent we don't recognize it is going to fester and grow.

GLENN: They're quoting the Quran. They're doing it in the name of Allah and the holy Prophet Muhammad. How much more Islamic do you need to be?

STU: That's what's amazing to this.

EMERSON: When you have a group called the Islamic Jihad and then you have the president or John Brennan, the CIA director, saying Jihad means peace and moral struggle, are we supposed to rename the Islamic Jihad the movement for peace and struggle? It's a group that carries out murders, stabbings, and decapitations. So it's absurd for us to deny the connection between Islam and these Islamic terrorist groups. Again, it doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, far from it. It's a minority, very small minority, but they have a dis-- especially the extremists, have a disproportionate control over the majority because they occupy the leadership position, the Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, as you know, Glenn, is the parent group of almost every single Suni terrorist group in the world from ISIS to Al Qaeda to Hamas, the Islamic Jihad. Every single group like that pays its homage to the Muslim Brotherhood. And you know what? The only country in the world that had the courage, the bravery to name the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in the United States, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, which was named a front group by the F.B.I. as a front group for Hamas, the only country in the world that named and designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as terrorist groups was a Muslim country, the United Arab Emirates. And who came to the defense of CAIR? The United States.

GLENN: Steve, I just want --

EMERSON: I'm ashamed of what the U.S. State Department did.

GLENN: I think the State Department -- the State Department is one of our biggest problems and the incoming president, whoever it might be, the best thing he could do is fire every single person at the State Department. Steve, I just wanted to get you on. I wanted to hear what your point of view was on this and I appreciate. I want you also to know, there are millions of Americans who -- who know you and who have learned a lot from you. And who support you. And I know that you're -- your organization takes donations and when you're up against all the powers of the world, I know how difficult it is. And I wanted to make sure that people understood that you could donate and you could help Steve at InvestigativeProject.Org. You can also go there and learn an awful lot of information that quite honestly is very politically incorrect and they have been trying to get this guy for 20 years. And he is really truly one of the American heroes that should be remembered in history as one of the guys -- as one of the Bohnhoffers that stood when no one else would stand. InvestigativeProject.org. Steve Emerson, thanks so much for being on the program.

EMERSON: Glenn, thanks for your very kind words.

GLENN: God bless you.

PAT: And instead of all that, they've turned it around in him in the midst of 12 people being murdered at the hands of extremist radicals. Now he's the problem, not they. Unbelievable.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.